Are contestants public figures in the meaning of Butts?
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
- floridagator
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:39 am
Are contestants public figures in the meaning of Butts?
The US Supreme Court has defined public figures as persons "who through purposeful activities thrust his or her personality into the vortex of an important public controversy." (Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967))
Are game show contestants public figures within the meaning of Butts? If they were to be defamed, would the case be subject to the higher actual malice standard for public figures or the lower standard for private figures which does not require a showing of actual malice?
Are game show contestants public figures within the meaning of Butts? If they were to be defamed, would the case be subject to the higher actual malice standard for public figures or the lower standard for private figures which does not require a showing of actual malice?
I'd rather cuddle then have sex. If you're into grammar, you'll understand.
-
- selwonKttaM
- Posts: 1369
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:33 pm
Re: Are contestants public figures in the meaning of Butts?
Are you trying to find out how badly you can defame the contestants without getting into trouble?
Just stop posting.
Just stop posting.
I had a dream that I was asleep and then I woke up and Jeopardy! was on.
- triviawayne
- Hoping I don’t drown in this contestant pool
- Posts: 2677
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:50 pm
Re: Are contestants public figures in the meaning of Butts?
How does going on a game show involve someone in "important public controversy"?floridagator wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:42 am The US Supreme Court has defined public figures as persons "who through purposeful activities thrust his or her personality into the vortex of an important public controversy." (Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967))
Are game show contestants public figures within the meaning of Butts? If they were to be defamed, would the case be subject to the higher actual malice standard for public figures or the lower standard for private figures which does not require a showing of actual malice?
Total game show career losings = $171,522
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 973
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:52 pm
Re: Are contestants public figures in the meaning of Butts?
cf Barry Gordy v Harriett Tubmartriviawayne wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:22 amHow does going on a game show involve someone in "important public controversy"?floridagator wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:42 am The US Supreme Court has defined public figures as persons "who through purposeful activities thrust his or her personality into the vortex of an important public controversy." (Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967))
Are game show contestants public figures within the meaning of Butts? If they were to be defamed, would the case be subject to the higher actual malice standard for public figures or the lower standard for private figures which does not require a showing of actual malice?
- floridagator
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:39 am
Re: Are contestants public figures in the meaning of Butts?
Lol, no. I thought this was timely because two Supreme Court justices have proposed revisiting the actual malice standard that currently applies in cases of public figures alleging defamation.
It turns out my post was especially prescient because just a few hours after I made it, the court declined to hear a case asking that the actual malice standard be reviewed. It takes four justices to want to hear a case for it to come to the court. There were at least two and obviously no more than three.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/politics ... index.html
It turns out my post was especially prescient because just a few hours after I made it, the court declined to hear a case asking that the actual malice standard be reviewed. It takes four justices to want to hear a case for it to come to the court. There were at least two and obviously no more than three.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/politics ... index.html
I'd rather cuddle then have sex. If you're into grammar, you'll understand.
- DysonSphere
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:43 am
Re: Are contestants public figures in the meaning of Butts?
Probably not. Appearing on TV one time doesn't make someone a celebrity.
- Woof
- Swimming in the Jeopardy! Pool
- Posts: 5125
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:53 pm
Re: Are contestants public figures in the meaning of Butts?
Durn, really? I guess that’s why TMZ hasn’t been returning my calls.DysonSphere wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:57 pm Probably not. Appearing on TV one time doesn't make someone a celebrity.
- Robert K S
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 5251
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio
- Contact:
Re: Are contestants public figures in the meaning of Butts?
There are all-purpose public figures, like office holders and household-name celebrities, and there are limited-purpose public figures.
In Bellino v. Judge, No. G057450, 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6987 (Oct. 23, 2020), James Bellino, the ex-husband of a former Real Housewives of Orange County castmate, sued RHOC castmate Tamra Judge for allegedly defamatory comments Judge made on a gossip podcast, including that Bellino would be going to jail. In its discussion, the appeals court held that Bellino was at least a limited-purpose public figure because he had "occasionally featured on RHOC, even if not a cast member", "decided to become a recurring character on a successful television show", and "made statements to media outlets". (The appeals court also decided that Bellion could have met the higher bar of proving actual malice.)
In Seelig v. Infinity Broad. Corp., 97 Cal. App. 4th 798, 119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 108 (2002), Jennifer Seelig, a contestant on Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, sued after KLLC's Sarah and Vinnie morning radio program referred to her as a "local loser", "chicken butt", and "big skank". The appeals court held that "{b}y having chosen to participate as a contestant in the Show, plaintiff voluntarily subjected herself to inevitable scrutiny and potential ridicule by the public and the media." The case was thrown out.
In Clark v. E! Entm't TV, LLC, No. 3:13-cv-00058, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49588 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 26, 2018), Corey Clark, a former contestant on American Idol, sued E! Entertainment Television for libel and false light invasion of privacy based on E!'s January 27, 2012 airing of E! True Hollywood Story: Paula Abdul, in which it was alleged that Clark had had an affair with Idol judge Paula Abdul while Clark was a contestant. Whether or not Clark was a limited-purpose public figure was not in issue, because Clark conceded as much. Thus, the defendant was awarded summary judgment (the lawsuit was thrown out).Bouvier Law Dictionary wrote:Limited-Purpose Public Figure
A person in the public eye only for a particular matter. A limited-purpose public figure is a person who is not generally in the public eye owing to fame or to office but who has garnered public attention as a result of participating in a particular event or issue, as a result of which the person is a public figure on matters relating to that event or issue. A person who is a limited-purpose public figure may not bring a defamation claim for alleged defamation on the matter of the person's notoriety without meeting the constitutional standard of actual malice, but the same person may bring a defamation action for statements not related to the same subject matter and need meet only the usual state standards of pleading.
In Bellino v. Judge, No. G057450, 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6987 (Oct. 23, 2020), James Bellino, the ex-husband of a former Real Housewives of Orange County castmate, sued RHOC castmate Tamra Judge for allegedly defamatory comments Judge made on a gossip podcast, including that Bellino would be going to jail. In its discussion, the appeals court held that Bellino was at least a limited-purpose public figure because he had "occasionally featured on RHOC, even if not a cast member", "decided to become a recurring character on a successful television show", and "made statements to media outlets". (The appeals court also decided that Bellion could have met the higher bar of proving actual malice.)
In Seelig v. Infinity Broad. Corp., 97 Cal. App. 4th 798, 119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 108 (2002), Jennifer Seelig, a contestant on Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, sued after KLLC's Sarah and Vinnie morning radio program referred to her as a "local loser", "chicken butt", and "big skank". The appeals court held that "{b}y having chosen to participate as a contestant in the Show, plaintiff voluntarily subjected herself to inevitable scrutiny and potential ridicule by the public and the media." The case was thrown out.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 973
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:52 pm
Re: Are contestants public figures in the meaning of Butts?
So, a Jeopardy! contestant can be referred to as, for example, a 'wagering moron', but not a 'chicken butt'?
- Robert K S
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 5251
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:26 pm
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio
- Contact:
Re: Are contestants public figures in the meaning of Butts?
This thread has come full circle from its title.
- squarekara
- J! Reactionary
- Posts: 1553
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:49 am
- Location: USDA Zone 5
- floridagator
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:39 am
Re: Are contestants public figures in the meaning of Butts?
Thank you for your thoughtful answer.Robert K S wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:25 pm There are all-purpose public figures, like office holders and h.
I'd rather cuddle then have sex. If you're into grammar, you'll understand.